M. Porcius Cato

I'm so glad you brought up the Book of Kells. Note the total disappearance of linear perspective, anatomically correct human anatomy, naturalistic depiction of animals, optically correct shading, and on and on. Heck, even the literature (the gospels) is simply a re-telling of events from...the Hellenistic Mediterranean by ancient writers. To the writings of the ancient world, all they could do in the Dark Ages was doodle in the margins. Yes, the doodles and calligraphy were pretty, but that's not culture--it's penmanship.

The archaeological record supports this statement absolutely, at least with respect to Western Europe. In 400, ordinary people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied selection of pottery vessels suited to multiple functions, had access to luxury products made some distance away, and access to imported wines. A hundred years later they were living under thatch, cooked, ate and drank from basic round pots, had virtually no luxury items unless very rich and drank beer or mead. Quite right. In fact, if you just look at the bones of Dark Age cattle, you can see that even the animals were starving.

I mean the application of your definition of optimate/populare should be non-controversial. As an example, one might take the man's position on tribunician power to be the defining feature of the optimate/populare categories. Using this definition, one could--without controversy--put Sulla in the optimate category (since he sponsored the laws depriving them of power) and put Pompey and Crassus in the populare category (since they sponsored the laws that returned power to tribunes). An example of controversial placement would be the categorization of people who had no known position on the power of tribunes (e.g., Catulus). Some definitions, I think it's easy to see, would be inherently controversial to apply. The notion that the 'optimates' were the "good men", for example, couldn't be applied without controversy. After all, was Cicero a good man? Obviously the matter is controversial. Alternatively, the notion that the 'populares' were "for the people" also couldn't be applied without controversy since everyone claimed to be "for the people". (Recall Nasica's contio in which he told the crowd, "Silence, please, Citizens; for I know better than you what is good for you."!)

It's a perfect name. If you want to argue the opposite, please point us to the splendors of Dark Age architecture, Dark Age engineering, Dark Age legal codes, let alone Dark Age pottery, sculpture, paintings, literature, and science. Compared to the Hellenistic age in which Rome flourished, the Dark Ages were a nightmare in human history.

Probably because they couldn't afford them. The generals on the other hand could offer their men booty from their victories. The senate tried more than once to relieve people of their command but the men were behind their commanders. The basic premise is absurd. All the armies of the republic were formed to protect the People and Senate of Rome. If one of these armies went rogue (e.g., Caesar's, Antony's), the others were called in to defeat it (e.g., Pompey in the case of Caesar's rogue army, Hirtius and Pansa in the case of Antony's rogue army). The notable exception, of course, was Octavian's little army. At any other time in history, it would have been immediately outlawed and crushed, as happened to the many private armies that plagued Rome since its founding--from the armies of Titus and Tiberius Junius Brutus, to the armies of Lepidus, Brutus (the elder), and Catilina.

It's old garbage. You're not slow, just lucky.

Recall that Cicero was forced into exile until Cicero and his many friends managed to get the Caesar/Clodius boot off Cicero's neck. An experience like that tends to be intimidating, don't you think?

The terms 'optimates' and 'populares' are batted around fairly often, typically with the assumption that they were stable groups, somewhat like political parties. I'm not convinced that these groupings are ultimately that coherent, but I'm liable to change my mind. So, here's an experiment we might try: For the years 70-49, list 12 regular populares and 12 regular optimates, and explain a rule that reliably differentiates just these 24 men. If these categories are really well-defined, the lists should be easy to generate, the categorization of the names on the list should be fairly non-controversial, and a simple rule (say, one paragraph) should suffice to justify the two lists.

Now here's a fun fact: you're the same age as Cato when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Hope you have a better next 3 years than he did!

Scipio Africanus -- he defeated one of the greatest generals of the ancient world.

How did the Roman frontier strategy differ from the Republican to Imperial system?

Thanks for the excerpt. I'm still not thrilled with this explanation for manumission, however. If Augustus had really wanted to preserve the "Italianness" of the Roman citizen body, he could have passed a blanket act regulating the number of freed slaves who would be admitted as citizens, yet allowed them their freedom. (Unfortunately, however, my own source on Augustus' motivations is an article by Erich Segal that I read a very, very long time ago.)

That's an intriguing idea. How does Everitt come to this conclusion?

You're absolutely right: Caesar had at least some military merit.

Yes, that was a touch of real dramatic art. It's too bad Heller didn't do more of the scripts.

Labienus almost annihilated Caesar's whole bloody army. According to Caesar's henchmen, the only reason Caesar was let off the hook was that Labienus wanted to give Metellus Scipio the honors of finishing off the rascal.

What do you think all those consular and proconsular armies were for????

Happy birthday, Virgil.

One of the nice things about the internet is that it's possible to use hyperlinks to arrange the same material in multiple ways. If you're so inclined, you might choose to take a long look at Caesar through Cicero's eyes. Caesar's Early Career Cicero Against Cat. 1.15, 4.7-10; Pro Mur. 81; Pro Sulla 11-12, 67-68, 81 Caesar's Consulship (59) Cicero, Letters to Atticus 1.16-19, 2.1, 3-24 (S-B nos. 16-19, 21, 23-44) Letters to His Brother Quintus 1.2 (S-B no. 2, in Letters to His Friends) In Vatiniam 24-25 Caesar's Proconsulship (58-57) Cicero, Att. 3.15, 18 (S-B

Indeed. Moreover, in an era of political violence, Cicero's freedom to act was greatly constrained. It's a lot easier to be brave when you have a couple of legions standing in front of you!

Question Auctoritas.

I think we tend to overestimate the importance of consuls due to their military responsibilities. In consequence, most consuls end up famous (to us), but from the Roman standpoint, there may have been more famous non-consuls than famous consuls. Just look at the list of great tribunes who never attained the consulship.

How was the trip GPM?

God I love a good harangue!